You grossly mislead. It matters more than anything else. Hard evidence is the only thing one should base their judgment on. A court of law does not (or should not at least) rely on speculation but instead on hard evidence. Speculation doesn't matter

Some questions for you Jebus:
Why have the tailors faked the clothes when they had the money and the know how to make real ones?
If they did fake it, why have none of the thousands of people looking at the naked emperor blown a whistle yet?
If they did risk faking it, why would they not take better care making sure the scam will not be blown to pieces by a child?
If they did fake it, why would they decide to sell some of their fake clothes to Holland?
Where did that huge amount of money for the clothes go?
If they did fake it, why did some of the country's tailors die?

You never bothered to answer my questions. Why the hell should I answer your bullshit questions.

How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

You said yourself that you wouldn't bother continuing the discussion regardless of questions and criticism, and you did some hardcore lecturing when you were responding to Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and Jebus.
I gave my opinion. There's a difference. You are free to believe what you desire. I have nothing more to offer than to flog a dead horse. You guys have heard my arguments and you have your opinion, I have mine.

Why care to say they look real if it doesn't matter to you? That's why I linked 40 photos. I agree that if one or two looked fake this would not mean the whole event is fake. But if it's more, it should tell you something. And boy I have a hard time finding a few that actually look convincing enough.

That was pretty much your whole argument though.

Just because you don't know all the why's doesn't mean you can't call bullshit.

You grossly mislead. It matters more than anything else. Hard evidence is the only thing one should base their judgment on. A court of law does not (or should not at least) rely on speculation but instead on hard evidence. Speculation doesn't matter

So you don't think attorneys should discuss motive in a court of law?

They should do what is in their power to solve the case. Motive alone can never serve to prove a criminal guilty of a crime. In case of photographic or video evidence of a crime, discussing motive is rather irrelevant. The criminal will be punished based on the evidence, and can't escape justice for a mere lack of [apparent] motive.

Some questions for you Jebus:
Why have the tailors faked the clothes when they had the money and the know how to make real ones?
If they did fake it, why have none of the thousands of people looking at the naked emperor blown a whistle yet?
If they did risk faking it, why would they not take better care making sure the scam will not be blown to pieces by a child?
If they did fake it, why would they decide to sell some of their fake clothes to Holland?
Where did that huge amount of money for the clothes go?
If they did fake it, why did some of the country's tailors die?

You never bothered to answer my questions. Why the hell should I answer your bullshit questions.

"My" questions are your own original questions altered merely in details to fit the Emperor's new clothes hoax. I showed they are irrelevant. If you insist they're relevant, you must answer them to prove it. Care to exercise? Only then can you demand my answers to all those original questions you can answer with a simple: "They didn't fake it".
What if I answered to all my altered questions: "They didn't fake the clothes. They were real. The child was wrong." Does that sound remotely acceptable? If it's not acceptable, try to come up with some answers. I demand that you solve the case at hand completely. Can you do it? Go ahead and show me how. You know it's a hoax, therefore you must know all the details of it as well. No?

Why care to say they look real if it doesn't matter to you? That's why I linked 40 photos. I agree that if one or two looked fake this would not mean the whole event is fake. But if it's more, it should tell you something. And boy I have a hard time finding a few that actually look convincing enough.

That was pretty much your whole argument though.

Yes, that was my whole argument. Hard evidence, which Zzzz and Jebus dismiss because "it doesn't matter". I can't possibly argue any further. I can however refute cheap and flawed logic and I have done just that.

Yes, that was my whole argument. Hard evidence, which Zzzz and Jebus dismiss because "it doesn't matter". I can't possibly argue any further. I can however refute cheap and flawed logic and I have done just that.

WAT? I didn't have any trouble following you up until now, but I am at a loss here. Care to rephrase the point?

You aren't a professional, so you have no authority to judge whether or not the pictures and videos are real or not with just a simple glance.
And I am starting to suspect you of trolling, but I'm not too sure.

Why care to say they look real if it doesn't matter to you? That's why I linked 40 photos. I agree that if one or two looked fake this would not mean the whole event is fake. But if it's more, it should tell you something. And boy I have a hard time finding a few that actually look convincing enough.

Well all 40 look real to me, and to Red as well. You can say the lighting looks odd but it could only look that way if done on the moon. They would have needed so many lasers to recreate it here on earth of so many different colours and they only had lasers in the red colour at the time

Why have the tailors faked the clothes when they had the money and the know how to make real ones?

It costed the tailors from "The Emperor's New Clothes" nothing to not make clothes, plus they had the motivation to have the emperor walk around naked because he was rude to them (or at least he was in the version of the tale that I heard) and they could then laugh at him. The motivation for the Americans to send a man to the moon was sparked because they wanted to look good in the face of their Soviet rivals who had sent the first man into space. Either faking the moon landing or actually going to the moon would have done this. However, going to the moon would have been easier, because they would not need all those lasers that they didn't have.

If they did fake it, why have none of the thousands of people looking at the naked emperor blown a whistle yet?

In the tale, the people looking at the naked emperor were told that they were foolish if they couldn't see the clothes. They wouldn't blow a whistle because they wouldn't want to look foolish. However, if the moon landing was faked, then the people involved in the moon landing would have already had to have known that it was faked, and they would have certainly blown a whistle. Besides, after a while, once a lie has run its course, the government of the USA lets its people know that it was lying because the lie serves no purpose. There is no purpose for us to believe that German soldiers stabbed babies with bayonets or that the Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators or that Saddam Hussein kept weapons of mass destruction, so we now know that these things were faked. Likewise, there is no purpose for us to believe that the moon landing was faked because the Soviet Union is dead and gone, so surely we would know now as there is no reason to keep the lie going.

If they did risk faking it, why would they not take better care making sure the scam will not be blown to pieces by a child?

Because the tailors didn't care and only wanted the emperor who was rude to them to be humiliated by having to walk around naked (at least in the version I heard). However, the U.S. government would surely care if somebody could find fault in their photographs and videos (of which there is none), as the Soviets could call BS on them.

If they did fake it, why would they decide to sell some of their fake clothes to Holland?
Where did that huge amount of money for the clothes go?
If they did fake it, why did some of the country's tailors die?

None of these things happened in any versions of the tale, and so are irrelevant.

How could they have faked the moon landing with such limited technology at the time? They would have needed so many lasers of so many different colours and they only even had red lasers at the time! Surely it would have been easier to go to the moon. And yes, governments do lie, but how could they have gotten their Soviet rivals to claim that the moon landing was real? It would be like Trump expecting the DPRK to back up his lies!

The detection on Earth of reflections from laser ranging retro-reflectors (LRRRs, or mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) on Lunar Laser Ranging experiments left on the Moon is evidence of landings. . .
The image [below] shows what is considered some of the most unambiguous evidence.

Retro Schmeto Graph.png

This experiment repeatedly fires a laser at the Moon, at the spots where the Apollo landings were reported. The dots show when photons are received from the Moon. The dark line shows that a large number come back at a specific time, and hence were reflected by something quite small (well under a metre in size). Photons reflected from the surface come back over a much broader range of times (the whole vertical range of the plot corresponds to only 30 metres or so in range). The concentration of photons at a specific time appears when the laser is aimed at the Apollos 11, 14 or 15 landing sites; otherwise the expected featureless distribution is observed. The Apollo reflectors are still in use.Strictly speaking, although the reflectors are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon, and their locations are consistent with NASA's claims, they do not prove humans have visited the Moon. Smaller retroreflectors were carried by the unmanned landers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. The Lunokhod 2 reflector has been in use since 1973. The location of Lunokhod 1 was unknown for nearly 40 years but it was rediscovered in 2010 in photographs by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and its retroreflector is now in use. Both the United States and the USSR had the capability to soft-land objects on the surface of the Moon for several years before that. The USSR successfully landed its first unmanned probe (Luna 9) on the Moon in February 1966, and the United States followed with Surveyor 1 in June 1966, but no unmanned landers carried retroreflectors before Lunokhod 1 in November 1970.

Do you deny the existence of the reflectors on the moon? Or do you believed it was an automated and unmanned mission for the reflectors and other lunar items?

Yes, that was my whole argument. Hard evidence, which Zzzz and Jebus dismiss because "it doesn't matter". I can't possibly argue any further. I can however refute cheap and flawed logic and I have done just that.

WAT? I didn't have any trouble following you up until now, but I am at a loss here. Care to rephrase the point?

You aren't a professional, so you have no authority to judge whether or not the pictures and videos are real or not with just a simple glance.

I have never mentioned anything about authority. I said "Just because you don't know all the why's doesn't mean you can't call bullshit." Even a child can call bullshit. Again veganism is a perfect example where children clearly see what adults can't.

@Zzzzz: I can't believe you insist on this premise of yours that landing on the Moon is easier than faking it. I have nothing to say in response.
Why have you started this thread and poll, if I may ask?

This experiment repeatedly fires a laser at the Moon, at the spots where the Apollo landings were reported. The dots show when photons are received from the Moon. The dark line shows that a large number come back at a specific time, and hence were reflected by something quite small (well under a metre in size). Photons reflected from the surface come back over a much broader range of times (the whole vertical range of the plot corresponds to only 30 metres or so in range). The concentration of photons at a specific time appears when the laser is aimed at the Apollos 11, 14 or 15 landing sites; otherwise the expected featureless distribution is observed. The Apollo reflectors are still in use. Strictly speaking, although the reflectors are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon, and their locations are consistent with NASA's claims, they do not prove humans have visited the Moon. Smaller retroreflectors were carried by the unmanned landers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2. The Lunokhod 2 reflector has been in use since 1973. The location of Lunokhod 1 was unknown for nearly 40 years but it was rediscovered in 2010 in photographs by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and its retroreflector is now in use. Both the United States and the USSR had the capability to soft-land objects on the surface of the Moon for several years before that. The USSR successfully landed its first unmanned probe (Luna 9) on the Moon in February 1966, and the United States followed with Surveyor 1 in June 1966, but no unmanned landers carried retroreflectors before Lunokhod 1 in November 1970.
Do you deny the existence of the reflectors on the moon? Or do you believed it was an automated and unmanned mission for the reflectors and other lunar items?

The answer is contained in the article you're quoting. I don't have an opinion on the unmanned missions, and it's OT. By "Moon landing" I understand humans on the surface of the Moon. By the way:

The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between Earth and the Moon using laser ranging....The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Would it be fair if I relentlessly demanded proof that Apollo indeed landed on the Moon, of all of you, while dismissing everything you say by writing "it doesn't matter", "it's fake", "your reasoning is flawed", "you can't answer my questions" etc and demanding complete explanations? I don't think so. I respect you have the right to your opinion, all of you, and I have no desire to prove you wrong.

@Zzzzz: I can't believe you insist on this premise of yours that landing on the Moon is easier than faking it. I have nothing to say in response.
Why have you started this thread and poll, if I may ask?

Well if you can't believe that I insist on the premise that landing on the Moon is easier than faking it, when it is very obvious that I do insist it, then it is no wonder you can't believe (despite how obvious it is) that we landed on the Moon!

I had created this thread and poll for the same reasons as anybody creates a poll and a thread on this forum: To start a sensible discussion based on the facts and the hard evidence.

So far, despite your claims to looking at the "hard evidence", the evidence you have presented would be immodest to even call itself "soft evidence". Let me remind you that this is what you have presented:

- A video of the Apollo 17 takeoff from the Moon to which you add your subjective opinion that it is hilarious
- A press conference of the Apollo 11 to which you add your subjective opinion that they are lying
- Some pictures taken on the Moon to which you add your subjective opinion that they look fake
- An analogy to the Emperor's New Clothes which I have already poked holes in

I have presented objective facts: They did not have the technology at the time to fake the moon landing. They would have needed to get so many lasers of so many different colours and put them all together like pixels on a TV screen to create the lighting that we see. We could easily fake the moon landing today as we now have computer graphics technology, so don't have to use the lasers. They only had red lasers at the time and even getting one of those would be unimaginably improbable. Not to mention that the Soviet Union would have every reason to claim that the moon landing was faked if there was any evidence that suggested so.

Why didn't they?
Were they in on it too?
Was Yuri Gagarin and Laika being sent to space faked too?
Was the Cold War faked as well?
Was the DPRK in on this?
How did the U.S. government get all those lasers in order to create the lighting?
Were they secretly developing computer graphics technology?
If so, why would they spend the time they could have used developing technology to send a man to the moon developing computer graphics technology?
Why would they waste so much money developing computer graphics technology, building a massive rocket, hiring Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as actors, hiring a director (Stanley Kubrick?), catering for a film crew, making a film set, etc. instead of just using that money to sent a man to the moon?
What was the point of that speech Richard Nixon was supposed to read out in the eventuality that Neil and Buzz were to die on the moon?
Were they worried that they could be killed by one of the film props falling on them?

The answer to all of these questions is very obvious. Very obvious indeed. The answer to all of these questions is that the moon landing was ever so clearly not faked and it couldn't have been faked and it would have been easier to just go to the flipping moon than to majestically create the lighting and to get the Soviets to not sing like a bird. That is unless you want to make another analogy to the Emperor's New Clothes. Or perhaps another fairy tale - Rumpelstiltskin maybe?